Jump to content

Photo

Climate change debate data


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:17 AM

I disagree -- the research going on is dabbling. I see no serious effort being made. You can't give it a year -- that's what's going on -- you get a year to see results -- that's not chemistry making you her bitch, that's people not giving a sh!t. Throwing a couple hundred thousand here and there to see if anyone has a quick promising result isn't sincere effort -- it's actually a big waste of money. Anyhow -- like you said, you're not a scientist and you're not equipped to think outside of the existing layman's paradigm. (There must be some sort of Godwin's Law when people bring up cold fusion in a renewable energy discussion)

I'm not trying to take away your jade here but it's kind of stating the obvious that there won't be any serious push for alternative energy sources as long as there's money to be made in fossil fuels. I think my daughter generation will take it more seriously

and making people richer or poorer? We're getting wealthier -- guess it's my turn to wax all jaded now. I'll spare us :) I'll just say money does not lead to social or technological advancement. Technological advancement in fact leads to social advancement and more money for everyone.


World investment in renewables last year was $244 billion, and I'm not sure whether that includes both government and private spending. Under no definition is that dabbling.

http://fs-unep-centr...investment-2013

Otherwise I'm calling a reverse Godwin's law on you saying when you're invoking Godwin's law you're deflecting.

Or I'm thinking of a Manhattan Project law, which means if you say we need a Manhattan Project for this or that you usually don't know what you're talking about. Or perhaps it should be the Tom Friedman rule.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#22 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:40 AM

I didn't mean to be invoking Godwin's law.  I have no problem with what you wrote -- it's what you think based upon what's put out there to the masses.  Neither of us delves that deeply into chemistry or the laws of physics.  Cold fusion is wet dream -- it's very 1970s.  I mean even I know that.  My dad used to talk about how cool it would be IF, when I was a kid.  Lots of people do stroke themselves - but it's just non-viable.  With that in mind it's goofy to hold it up as REAL alternative.  It's a goofy thing to put out there no matter which side you are on.  And BOTH sides give it a shot.  That's why it's comical -- not because you pulled some idiotic lame move.  Sorry if it seemed like I was trying to insult your intelligence or cam of patronizing.

 

 

NOW -- I do think 244 billion worlds wide is indeed dabbling when you consider forcasted Oil industry profits...$7,783 billion in 2017 -- and that's not taking into account ALL non-renewables

 

http://www.reportlin...t-Analysis.html

 

Oh yeah -- and I AM just pulling googled links out of my ass because throwing stupid numbers out is lame and deflecting away from the point. 

 

Here here's more  2012 Oil and gas research investment:  "Total worldwide capital expenditures for the companies in the study were US$541.0b in 2012."  That's not 541 billion GLOBAL expenditure -- that's just from the companies in the study... there's lots more --  LOTS MORE being invested  -- and again -- were just talking oil & gas.

 

http://www.ey.com/GL...ts#.U339OS9RarQ

 

Yes. As described in that bit in your link even I do consider 244 billion dabbling.  :)


Edited by Pepperkorn, 22 May 2014 - 08:40 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#23 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 22 May 2014 - 08:46 AM

Also -- the point is still -- I'm so excited we get to move into a different arena -- we can move into the economic arena and that broadens the thinking...  someone is now free to broach the subject of investing in research.  Sure it may seem a losing battle at this early stage but its' nto ON THE TABLE IN A USA HOCKEY MESSAGE BOARD.  Sure a game show host can still grab headlines claiming climate alarmist are unpatriotic racist pigs -- but there is still an conversation going on at what amounts to the water cooler, going in the right, logical, educated direction.  That's such a victory to me.


Edited by Pepperkorn, 22 May 2014 - 08:47 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#24 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:36 AM

Also -- the point is still -- I'm so excited we get to move into a different arena -- we can move into the economic arena and that broadens the thinking...  someone is now free to broach the subject of investing in research.  Sure it may seem a losing battle at this early stage but its' nto ON THE TABLE IN A USA HOCKEY MESSAGE BOARD.  Sure a game show host can still grab headlines claiming climate alarmist are unpatriotic racist pigs -- but there is still an conversation going on at what amounts to the water cooler, going in the right, logical, educated direction.  That's such a victory to me.

 

The conversation about moving away from fossil fuels and into renewables has been going on for a long time.  I actually really can't stand how "we need to have an honest conversation about X" has entered into the political lexicon.  (It's almost as bad as using demagogue as a verb).  I find that when someone says an honest conversation is needed, it means they actually really want to avoid the issue and are honesty becomes a euphemism for I'm correct.

 

From my standpoint, there are a few issues with the climate change debate, which I've alluded to before.  Initially, it's the exaggerated claims from the main stream press.  Basically, you can't have a hurricane, a flood, a tornado, a drought, an unusually hot day, an unusually cold day without some television news producer or Op-Ed writer that studied political science or womyn's studies linking it to global warming.  The Atlantic is particularly terrible when it comes to this.  It's a claim that cannot be falsified.

 

But otherwise, and it can't be said enough, is that any realistic attempt to cut emissions will mainly come from cutting personal consumption, i.e. economic growth, even with renewables.  To make the point, here's some very rough math as it relates to solar.  (The numbers are according to wikipedia and someone can please correct my math if I'm wrong).

 

A solar panel running at 20 percent efficiency (pretty standard these days) in relatively ideal conditions, gets you 440 kwh per year (according to wikipedia).  Let's make that solar 100 percent efficient, which gets you to 2,200 kwh per year.  Looking around the interwebs, it seems like one solar panel that goes in your home costs $300, lets say there's technological advancement and economies of scale that can bring that cost down to $200. 

 

A ton of coal gets you 1,842 kwh at a cost of $60 per ton on the spot market, or that's what I've read.  That's about 1.2 tons of coal, or $72 per year.  So in other words, even with unheard of technological advancement it would take your Average Joe a few years to recoup the investment in a solar panel relative to coal, and that's even assuming that the solar panel lasts a lifetime, that it doesn't cost anything to maintain, and they cost nothing to install.  Guess what, for our lifetimes, coal is going to beat solar every single time.  No amount of extreme weather events is going to change that.

 

Now (again assuming my math is correct) THAT is an honest conversation about renewables and climate change. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#25 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 11:35 AM

Ivory tusks raise a sh!t load of money.  fvck the elephants - make money!

 

Most people aren't that comfortable being honest about that outlook.  There are other constructive options and you're choosing the destructive one.  It's not a wise maximum gain choice as you're kind of implying. It's more of an unapologetic instant gratification maximum high kind of choice even as you describe it. So that's the new challenge helping people really comprehend the impact of their choices, on an individual basis, as well as a grand scheme.  BTW - despite my example, I do not think it's morally reprehensible a la the elephants, I think based on what the public really knows of the subject, it's just being short-sighted for convenience sake.

 

Right now, it's such a highly subjective thing we can't really get into it.  My grabbing google insta-facts all slap-dash while you're doing the same isn't going to convince anyone of anything except perhaps that my grandfather passed down some serious arguing talent so that I - a generation removed from a professional - can still hold my own with a first line trained lawyer.  :uni:  I totally agree with much of what you say except I think your current forgone conclusion is wrong - so that means the word getting out there needs to be honed more now.

 

Also - just an FYI - I don't follow mainstream media or blogs or any of that. I don't follow global warming alarmist sights or publications. I pretty much listen to NPR on my work commute, watch nature programs on PBS, read Scientific American and American Scientist as well as receive Science and Nature which is pretty much over my head half the time.  Oh and I can't leave out my "friend" barrage of really weak gibberings on facebook posts.


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#26 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 24 May 2014 - 02:00 PM

Ivory tusks raise a sh!t load of money.  fvck the elephants - make money!

 

Most people aren't that comfortable being honest about that outlook.  There are other constructive options and you're choosing the destructive one.  It's not a wise maximum gain choice as you're kind of implying. It's more of an unapologetic instant gratification maximum high kind of choice even as you describe it. So that's the new challenge helping people really comprehend the impact of their choices, on an individual basis, as well as a grand scheme.  BTW - despite my example, I do not think it's morally reprehensible a la the elephants, I think based on what the public really knows of the subject, it's just being short-sighted for convenience sake.

 

Right now, it's such a highly subjective thing we can't really get into it.  My grabbing google insta-facts all slap-dash while you're doing the same isn't going to convince anyone of anything except perhaps that my grandfather passed down some serious arguing talent so that I - a generation removed from a professional - can still hold my own with a first line trained lawyer.  :uni:  I totally agree with much of what you say except I think your current forgone conclusion is wrong - so that means the word getting out there needs to be honed more now.

 

Also - just an FYI - I don't follow mainstream media or blogs or any of that. I don't follow global warming alarmist sights or publications. I pretty much listen to NPR on my work commute, watch nature programs on PBS, read Scientific American and American Scientist as well as receive Science and Nature which is pretty much over my head half the time.  Oh and I can't leave out my "friend" barrage of really weak gibberings on facebook posts.

 

Ha, this is pretty lame.

 

I'm not talking about whether people ought to refrain, or perhaps even be legally compelled from making or buying luxury goods that serve no or very little purpose and are harmful to the environment (or cause any other unacceptable externalities).  In fact, I'm not even talking about whether someone should be forced to buy a more fuel efficient car and that enormous SUVs should be taken off the market. 

 

You were talking about how we need to start a massive civilizational undertaking to move towards renewables and that techological innovation would be sure to follow.  I gave you concrete numbers that show that even under the most ideal scenarios (that are completely unrealistic in and of themselves), at least solar power cannot come even close to fulfilling even the most basic energy needs of a functioning modern economy, and that you ought to be honest that renewables would cut into the wealth of ordinary people, rather than just meaning that the Monopoly Man won't be able to buy another ivory encrusted mononcle.  If you think I'm wrong, or that it's just a matter of indulging our fellow citizens too much, I suggest that you attempt to see how well you would do by getting at least 20 percent of your own evidently Spartan energy needs fulfilled by solar.  (I would say wind, but that depends on whether someone else built wind turbines in your area.  You can at least put solar panels on your home).  Believe me, after a few weeks you'll be begging the Koch Brothers to double their efforts to explore for fossil fuels. 


Edited by Daniel, 24 May 2014 - 02:01 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#27 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 09:32 AM

Hmeh --  :urg:  the ivory thing was just an impetuous over-statement on my part and clearly only served to cloud the issue.  It's a weakness of mine. Mocking/overstating assuming people will keep things in perspective despite the fact I get to toss in a lameass pot shot.

 

The conclusion I have drawn from your posts is that the next line of communication needs to be helping people to understand the economic impact being handed down to each individual with the use of non-renewables.  You clearly understand a benefit.  You do not understand or care about the indirect costs you, yourself are paying.  Society does not care about the indirect costs of non-renewables.  Yet the sole argument against renewables is the economic cost to the individual.  The fossil fuel industries cost to us is irrelevant but the renewables cost is the complete reason for not investing.

 

I do think you're justifying a short-sighted, lazy, selfish view.  Fossils fuels are easy for us. Yet we should understand they are costing us a lot. The economic benefit you describe seems pretty myopic.  Based upon your reasoning for not using renewables, we are not benefiting financially nearly as much as we should be from the non-renewables. The oil industry is benefiting the most, unless your family is in that, you aren't seeing any significant amount of the actual benefit. In using non-renewables, we are putting a MUCH higher percentage of total revenue into the pockets of the non-renewable industries than with renewables.  That's just simple logic. 

 

The renewables industry sacrifices profit for competitive pricing. Oil jacks up cost for maximum profits, precisely because the kind of reasoning you describe allows them to.  Fossil fuels infrastructure is in place, it's a well established pipeline (figuratively).  Please do not hand me they are the good guys and Al Gore & Co. wants to rob you blind and line their own pockets (the invocation of Al Gore by the way, is the equivalent to calling the Oil industry The Bushes. It's a hyperbolic euphemism with implied derision.  I have more in common politically with GWB than I do with any Gore, with maybe the exception of Lesley).

 

Oil has you by the short and curlies -- please dont tell me they dont.  It's not free.   Yes - it's currently monetarily cheaper - I feel like you're trying to say that equates to the individual generating personal revenue.  It's not. I'm fine with you saying it's a very short-term gain - but long-term enough for you to reap a relatively minor benefit for yourself. For the time being we get to keep a little more in our pocket using fossil fuel. 

 

Now on this point I think you totally misunderstand me. I am saying invest in research -- invest in technology NOW.  Right now, true, making the choice to use renewables does amount to a less efficient product at a higher cost because you are bearing the cost of technology development but that's far from my main point. You are clearly doing the same -- the exact same thing with oil.  You are paying a premium you do not have to be paying -- for technology development that we know will be obsolete and exploratory research.  The more revenue put into non-renewables, the FASTER the investment becomes useless!  Because you're pouring sand down a rat hole.  This is logical.  but you dont give a fvck.  There.  So as I said  THE NEXT STEP IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY NEED TO GIVE A fvck. I do like the smoking/tobacco industry analogy for fossil fuel but I suppose I'll keep it off the table if you want to use my lame analogies to obfuscate my point. (I'm kidding here with the analogy thing - I mean we all know it's my GIGANTIC RAGING communication flaw.  It's why I love Chico Resch - I so get him.)

 

 

( FYI - with regarding to the implication I'd invoke the Koch Bros as some evil empire -- I want the Koch Bros to keep their industry going -- I do.  We have some seriously vital petroleum based products I value far more than fuel.  I love the new book on them -- it puts their motivations into more accurate perspective.  Well -- from what I've skimmed of it. :blush:)


Edited by Pepperkorn, 27 May 2014 - 09:41 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party


#28 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 09:56 AM

Hmeh --  :urg:  the ivory thing was just an impetuous over-statement on my part and clearly only served to cloud the issue.  It's a weakness of mine. Mocking/overstating assuming people will keep things in perspective despite the fact I get to toss in a lameass pot shot.

 

The conclusion I have drawn from your posts is that the next line of communication needs to be helping people to understand the economic impact being handed down to each individual with the use of non-renewables.  You clearly understand a benefit.  You do not understand or care about the indirect costs you, yourself are paying.  Society does not care about the indirect costs of non-renewables.  Yet the sole argument against renewables is the economic cost to the individual.  The fossil fuel industries cost to us is irrelevant but the renewables cost is the complete reason for not investing.

 

I do think you're justifying a short-sighted, lazy, selfish view.  Fossils fuels are easy for us. Yet we should understand they are costing us a lot. The economic benefit you describe seems pretty myopic.  Based upon your reasoning for not using renewables, we are not benefiting financially nearly as much as we should be from the non-renewables. The oil industry is benefiting the most, unless your family is in that, you aren't seeing any significant amount of the actual benefit. In using non-renewables, we are putting a MUCH higher percentage of total revenue into the pockets of the non-renewable industries than with renewables.  That's just simple logic. 

 

The renewables industry sacrifices profit for competitive pricing. Oil jacks up cost for maximum profits, precisely because the kind of reasoning you describe allows them to.  Fossil fuels infrastructure is in place, it's a well established pipeline (figuratively).  Please do not hand me they are the good guys and Al Gore & Co. wants to rob you blind and line their own pockets (the invocation of Al Gore by the way, is the equivalent to calling the Oil industry The Bushes. It's a hyperbolic euphemism with implied derision.  I have more in common politically with GWB than I do with any Gore, with maybe the exception of Lesley).

 

Oil has you by the short and curlies -- please dont tell me they dont.  It's not free.   Yes - it's currently monetarily cheaper - I feel like you're trying to say that equates to the individual generating personal revenue.  It's not. I'm fine with you saying it's a very short-term gain - but long-term enough for you to reap a relatively minor benefit for yourself. For the time being we get to keep a little more in our pocket using fossil fuel. 

 

Now on this point I think you totally misunderstand me. I am saying invest in research -- invest in technology NOW.  Right now, true, making the choice to use renewables does amount to a less efficient product at a higher cost because you are bearing the cost of technology development but that's far from my main point. You are clearly doing the same -- the exact same thing with oil.  You are paying a premium you do not have to be paying -- for technology development that we know will be obsolete and exploratory research.  The more revenue put into non-renewables, the FASTER the investment becomes useless!  Because you're pouring sand down a rat hole.  This is logical.  but you dont give a fvck.  There.  So as I said  THE NEXT STEP IS TO HELP PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY NEED TO GIVE A fvck. I do like the smoking/tobacco industry analogy for fossil fuel but I suppose I'll keep it off the table if you want to use my lame analogies to obfuscate my point. (I'm kidding here with the analogy thing - I mean we all know it's my GIGANTIC RAGING communication flaw.  It's why I love Chico Resch - I so get him.)

 

 

( FYI - with regarding to the implication I'd invoke the Koch Bros as some evil empire -- I want the Koch Bros to keep their industry going -- I do.  We have some seriously vital petroleum based products I value far more than fuel.  I love the new book on them -- it puts their motivations into more accurate perspective.  Well -- from what I've skimmed of it. :blush:)

 

What has me by the short and curlies is that the people that actually know a thing or two about how to deliver societies' energy needs (i.e., that evil word the "market") have concluded that we just get a lot more bang for our buck out of fossil fuels than any other energy source.  Or I definitely trust it a lot more than some politician that read the latest issue of Wired and went to a Sierra Club meeting and thinks he now knows what he's talking about. 

 

Now, you are right that the market generally does not account for externalities, unless it's forced to.  Most of the time, this isn't that much of a problem.  So if mean oil company spills a bunch of oil in the ocean, big meanie oil company (and its insurers) have to pay for the cleanup and other damages and those costs generally get passed on to the consumer. 

 

The problem with carbon emissions is that the externalities are impossible to measure, to the point that anyone with a political agenda can just chalk something that goes bad in the world to global warming, and conclude that's what a gallon of gas really costs.  Until we knock off that kind of sh!t, the "honest conversation" is never going to happen, and I'll just go back to watching the The First 48. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#29 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 11:30 AM

The existence of anthropogenic climate change (which to me is, by definition, the existence of externalities) used to be the unprovable sticking point. 

 

Now you say yes there are externalities, this is a fact, but they are immeasurable so we should just stay the course.

 

I have said why I feel that's a mistake, and how this then provides the next step in the discussion of cutting back on the use of fossil fuel when possible.  We have nothing further to discuss as far as either of us moving from our current stance.  I have understood that from the outset and why I keep on restating it in each post I make.

 

I think it's a shame to demand money been put into measuring the immeasurable (proving anthropomorphic climate change was formerly the unprovable in the discussion, so I do consider this rather tongue in cheek) when we could simply cut to the chase, make meaningful investment into alternative energy sources thereby conserving fuel for the more meaningful benefit.

 

Climate change or no, significant externalities or no, fossil fuel is running out.  That's the only thing I can hold up to you for the time being. 

 

Oil companies are not the bad guy - I'm not saying that - its not part of my discussion. They have to be brought into the conversation when Al Gore is held up as the evil corporate conglomerate out to scam the world out of the oil magnates capital gains.  That's just so ridiculous. 

 

So let me state again,  the oil industry should survive - MUST survive.  That is precisely why we need to come up with alternate fuel sources.  Petroleum based products are currently vital to life on earth.  Many of the advantages they provide do not have viable, much less equivalent, alternatives.  They make the world a better place to cop HBO's Silcon Valley catch phrase.  We're wasting this hugely important limited resource on a destructive (you have said that's a given, despite the fact the precise externalities are immeasurable) personal energy source that has perfectly viable alternatives. 

 

I think that's irresponsible.  As for my own carbon footprint - I'm not proud of it, but I'm certainly better than most, right down to negative population growth. I'm sort of the wrong person to point to for that - nothing made me happier than being forced to run on limited power during the hurricane Sandy aftermath.  I was depressed when power came back after 7 days. I'm kind of noted for that on this site even... 


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#30 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 27 May 2014 - 12:50 PM

The existence of anthropogenic climate change (which to me is, by definition, the existence of externalities) used to be the unprovable sticking point. 

 

Now you say yes there are externalities, this is a fact, but they are immeasurable so we should just stay the course.

 

I have said why I feel that's a mistake, and how this then provides the next step in the discussion of cutting back on the use of fossil fuel when possible.  We have nothing further to discuss as far as either of us moving from our current stance.  I have understood that from the outset and why I keep on restating it in each post I make.

 

I think it's a shame to demand money been put into measuring the immeasurable (proving anthropomorphic climate change was formerly the unprovable in the discussion, so I do consider this rather tongue in cheek) when we could simply cut to the chase, make meaningful investment into alternative energy sources thereby conserving fuel for the more meaningful benefit.

 

Climate change or no, significant externalities or no, fossil fuel is running out.  That's the only thing I can hold up to you for the time being. 

 

Oil companies are not the bad guy - I'm not saying that - its not part of my discussion. They have to be brought into the conversation when Al Gore is held up as the evil corporate conglomerate out to scam the world out of the oil magnates capital gains.  That's just so ridiculous. 

 

So let me state again,  the oil industry should survive - MUST survive.  That is precisely why we need to come up with alternate fuel sources.  Petroleum based products are currently vital to life on earth.  Many of the advantages they provide do not have viable, much less equivalent, alternatives.  They make the world a better place to cop HBO's Silcon Valley catch phrase.  We're wasting this hugely important limited resource on a destructive (you have said that's a given, despite the fact the precise externalities are immeasurable) personal energy source that has perfectly viable alternatives. 

 

I think that's irresponsible.  As for my own carbon footprint - I'm not proud of it, but I'm certainly better than most, right down to negative population growth. I'm sort of the wrong person to point to for that - nothing made me happier than being forced to run on limited power during the hurricane Sandy aftermath.  I was depressed when power came back after 7 days. I'm kind of noted for that on this site even... 

 

I am not saying that we should "stay the course".  Frankly, I have no idea whether we should or should not, or really whether we have much choice in the matter.  All I'm asking for is a little bit of clarity and honesty when it comes to people telling me what the costs and benefits of staying the course are versus the costs and benefits of whatever solution or solutions people have in mind.

 

That means being honest about how practical renewables actually are (they really aren't for the reasons I've described ad nauseum), how much will society need to cut its energy consumption, what technological advancements are realistic, and what the costs of global warming actually are, i.e. not chalking up all of society's ills or every hurricane to global warming.  It also means not accusing anyone who asks these questions of being funded by the Koch brothers.   I don't really think this is too much to ask.  

 

Now, maybe none of this is possible.  In that instance then, I say tough luck.  As obtuse as that sounds, I'm actually being more generous than people who believe a calamity is just around the corner.  I actually don't know if there's anything we can do about global warming and what the consequence will be, but I try to be as responsible as I can when it comes to my own energy consumption.  There are people that believe even exaggerated worst case scenarios are a certainty, yet all they do is buy a hybrid car and turn off the lights during earth hour.   


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#31 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 07:26 AM

well -- the second time today I have to resort to "I hear that" 

I'm in total agreement.  I think people have to get off the alarmist horse - it's crying wolf.  Even while the economic disparity in the middle east may be cause for the rise of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda -- seriously -- you can leap to global warming causes terrorism?  I love that one  :wub:

 

One thing I don't consider alarmist - it is real, it's happening and will significantly impact life on earth regardless of specific size of the rise - I do think the water levels are rising - I do think this is due to anthropogenic climate change.  I am skimming The Sixth Extinction now - I find her evidence compelling though the alarmist tone is off-putting.  The whole fvcking expression inconvenient truth just sucks.  It really sums it up well  and I HATE THAT!  But that's just my own torment. 

 

The problem is that a lot of the alarmist stuff is hilarious and has partial truth.  Like my ivory tusk thing.  But it's so freaking pretentious, patronizing -- misleading -- it's like a elitist private joke "I'm joking but there is truth to it" "There IS -- you should just say it -- people are so simple minded they wont understand the truth -- put it this way and they'll see the urgency"  -- well everyone does understand it's NOT TRUE  and it comes off as alarmist bullsh!t.  And that does nothing but hide the truth.  You have to comb scientific peer reviewed publications - comb through who those peers really are, CONFIRM results are repeatable and just plain true.  Is it TRUE?  A lot of it is -- but it's impossible to get it out over the alarmist stuff that makes headlines stirs up a fervor and sells papers and programming. 


  • 0

I'm here for the party


#32 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 28 May 2014 - 02:05 PM

well -- the second time today I have to resort to "I hear that" 

I'm in total agreement.  I think people have to get off the alarmist horse - it's crying wolf.  Even while the economic disparity in the middle east may be cause for the rise of terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda -- seriously -- you can leap to global warming causes terrorism?  I love that one  :wub:

 

 

 

Sorry about that then.  I'm so used to hearing people that call some claims exaggerated being deniers, and on the level of creationists, that I kind of assume that's what other people are thinking.

 

It kind of reminds me of the exaggerated claims of secondhand smoke.  When you calmly point out that there is no evidence linking second hand smoke to the thousands of deaths that are claimed in the anti-smoking ads, and when you point out to people that even the studies that say secondhand smoke is bad don't make any such claims, you are called a lackey of the cigarette industry.  I suppose they deserve it.  I mean, who wants to say that smoking isn't THAT bad.


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#33 Daniel

Daniel

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,780 posts

Posted 10 June 2014 - 11:55 AM

Just stumbled across this article that touches on renewables and natural gas.

 

http://www.science20...than_co2-136356

 

Apparently, or according to the writer anyway, emissions have been dropping due to use of natural gas and without the subsidies that renewables get. 


  • 0
Posted Image
I collect spores, molds and fungus.
Hello fellow American. This you should vote me. I leave power. Good. Thank you, thank you. If you vote me, I'm hot. What? Taxes, they'll be lower... son. The Democratic vote is the right thing to do Philadelphia, so do.
How do you spot risk? How do you avoid risk? And what makes it so risky?

#34 Pepperkorn

Pepperkorn

    A Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,432 posts

Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:29 AM

The link above doesn't really work for me.  It's an editorial review of one paper referenced mostly in pop culture (twitter and facebook) for it's data about natural gas being an ineffective alternative fuel source as far as carbon footprint goes. Not one scientific article is produced to support the authors opinion-stated-as-fact.  Not even one legitimate citation beyond the article he's railing against.

 

I appreciate your parenthetical 'at least according to this guy' -- but that's kind of the whole thing of it - not just a brief aside.  It's some dude's railing - It's a thought... but it's not particularly compelling and certainly not representative of any scientific consensus.

 

ANYHOW - I thought this was fun for many a debate here (Not you Daniel - but other people I've tried to discuss stuff with) :

 

10 Scientific Ideas Scientists Wish You Would Stop Misusing


Edited by Pepperkorn, 17 June 2014 - 11:39 AM.

  • 0

I'm here for the party





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users